Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Well, if railroads had continued to increase max operating speeds after the 1930's (wherein 100 mph passenger operations, even a few fast freights, were getting down the tracks faster than any corresponding highway vehicle) and let the natural technology to it's logical evolution, maybe those four man crews would have been more productive than the two man crews today. Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day, and conversely the railroads would still be pusing for one man crews even with 50 mph or 75 mph average velocities, but think about this in terms of railroad productivity. [/quote] For somebody that has a bookeeping background, you continue to amaze me with your lack of basic math skills. The points were the crews were changed were based on a given track district, ie. number of miles. If the train speed is increased, they will cover that district faster (as in less hours on the road) and the crew will be on duty for less hours for the same pay, reducing their productivity. You even show less ability when you stated: "Granted, the unions still would have prefered limited crew districts like the 100 mile day" showing you realized there was a crew district limit. Maybe you should defer these type statements to someone that actually has some economics experience. [/quote] Maybe you should learn to read, TD. The context of the statement refering to crew districts and reduced crews is of the past tense, and refers to the divergent desires of the two parties. It is not meant as a variable inclusion of the primary point, namely a 4 man crew covering 600 miles is more productive than a two man crew covering 200 miles. Instead of trying to *increase* the bottom line by slashing crews, the railroads would have been better served increasing the average velocity to improve customer relations and increase business. I doubt a single rail worker layoff ever resulted in any increased business. [/quote] And you should read what you typed. You said that increasing speed would increase productivity. However, if you don't increase the length of the crew districts, you're still moving a train over a crew district and paying the crew a days wages to do it. The crew would love this as they would be working less actual hours for a days pay, but what would the railroad be getting for their investment in improved infrastructure? The labor costs won't change, it will still cost the same to move the train the 100 miles or however long the crew district is. It still makes no difference whether it's a decision of mangament or an agreement with the unions, the crew district size has to change before the speed increase will make a real difference on the bottom line. One factor being changed will have little difference, it has to be a combination of factors to make the difference noticeable. [/quote] Well, crew districts have expanded (used to be the 100 mile day, remember?), so I don't see how that is any kind of deterent to the quest of increasing productivity. I'm sure the unions, if faced with either reductions of crews or expansion of crew districts via higher speeds, would opt for the 4 man high speed crew district over the two man snail's pace crew district. However, that is not the point. The point is that the railroads would have done better to increase average speeds with the crews they had, rather than simply reducing crews as some magic elixer for increasing the bottom line. Increasing average speeds = increased business Reducing crew size = no increase in business [/quote] From your very first line: "if railroads had continued to increase max operating speeds after the 1930's" Increasing max operating speed does not necessarily equal increasing average speed. You can't even quote yourself correctly, let alone tell us what your two "formulas" above are based on. [/quote] The only way increasing max operating speed would not result in increasing average speed (all other things staying constant) was if the RR's found a way to clog up the works somewhere else along the line. The best way railroads can increase average velocity is if they can get faster sustained speeds between the bottlenecks. Usually, the sooner you get into a bottleneck, the sooner you'll get out, and the faster your overall interterminal speeds will be. Taking a portion of a quote out of context is pretty lowball, but par for the course. And the "formulas" as you call them are based on logic. Perhaps the "=" signs threw you off, thinking they are part of some mathematic calculations.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag